• news

• Opinions and interpretations

Assassination of the father of the Iranian bomb

Twilight Assassination

Even if Tehran fears an American attack at the end of the Trump era, some are urging it to respond immediately to the elimination of the Pharisees - and Israel is likely to be the target.

But its captains are careful to go to the threshold and not go to war, and this decision will also be made in the space between "strong enough" and "not too strong"

Tags

• Iran

• Mohsin Fahrizada

Assaf Orion

Tuesday, 01 December 2020, 15:52

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

0 comments

• Netanyahu at an event commemorating violence against women in the Knesset: "Women ...

• Drama in the Knesset: After it was approved and canceled, the proposal to establish ...

• Rivlin at the Rabin Memorial Ceremony: "Hatred is bubbling under us ...

• Pompeo arrived in Saudi Arabia for a meeting with Netanyahu and an heir ...

• A 9-year-old man who was riding his bicycle was killed by a truck in Ashkelon ...

• The future of rotation and the alternate prime minister: The High Court discusses its future against ...

• Palestinians are happy with Trump's loss, but do not expect miracles ...

• The auditor's report on the corona crisis found: An array of investigations ...

• Netanyahu spoke with Pollard: "We are waiting for you, you need ...

• Netanyahu welcomes normalization agreement with Sudan: ...

• Saeb Erekat, who was infected in Corona, was taken to a hospital in Israel ...

• US election: Trump and Biden hold rallies in Pennsylvania ...

In the video: The coffin of Muhsan Fahrizadeh arrived in the capital Tehran (Photo: Reuters)

The assassination of the head of the Iranian nuclear weapons program, General Muhsin Fahrizadeh, last week, is an act of twilight between governments in the United States, and between war and peace.

The characteristics and timing of the assassination increase uncertainty about its consequences and consequences, and sharpen the controversy over its justification and usefulness: Iran blames Israel and threatens an appropriate response;

The world condemns the action and defines it as terrorism against civilians and as a crime under international law, and warns against escalation;

Israel, which is not the first assassination attributed to it, is being held - but the lessons of the past are true at the moment.

The parties can not assume that repeated action will lead to a permanent result, because the context has changed - and people are adapting.

More on Walla!

NEWS

• After the assassination: The Foreign Ministry ordered world missions to increase security alert

• The senior scientist killed was buried in Tehran: "We will accelerate the nuclear program"

• The father of the nuclear program was eliminated, but how close is Iran to the bomb at all?

• Precedent step: The company that gives its insureds a financial grant

Not a citizen killed for political reasons, but a general killed in the service of a strategic enterprise.

Fahrizadeh Funeral (Photo: Reuters)

Like reality, the purpose of action is complex.

Iran's nuclear weapons program is a serious threat to Israel's security, and the death of Fahrizadeh, who headed it, will hamper its progress even if it does not stop it.

In determined, complex, and lengthy projects, it is difficult to estimate in advance the expected effect of an injury to a key person or an essential component.

Substitutes sometimes find it difficult to fill the void - as in the case of Suleimani with the power of Quds - but sometimes surpass their predecessors, such as Nasrallah in Lebanon.

Developing alternatives requires resources and time.

Some have explained the assassination as an attempt by Israel, or even by the outgoing administration, to drag Iran into a response that would serve as a pretext for attacking nuclear facilities.

Alternatively, it is likely that Israel and the United States assume that Iran will refrain from a significant immediate response, for fear of an attack approved by Trump.

Some have described the assassination as an obstacle to the Biden administration's resumption of talks with Iran over the nuclear deal.

But Iran and the Biden administration can overcome this obstacle if they overcome the other barriers in their path.

More on Walla!

NEWS

5 scientists killed in decade: The hunt for Iran's nuclear brains

To the full article

The definition of Fahrizadeh as a citizen and his killing as an act of terrorism is based on a proper normative distinction between civilians and soldiers and between war and peace, and on respecting the sovereignty of states as a fundamental principle.

These distinctions are systematically challenged by Iran, its art of warfare and its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

Fahrizadeh was not an innocent citizen but an engineer-general in the Revolutionary Guards, whose life's work was the development of weapons of mass destruction for a regime calling for the destruction of Israel.

The nuclear project is conducted under civilian cover of peace objectives.

Instead of the unnecessary distinction between war and peace, Iran has chosen a twilight warfare, and it is waging anti-Israel, and across the Middle East, continuous, low-intensity fighting, in the gray space below the war threshold.

Israel has responded to the Iranian challenge on its two heads - the nuclear and the regional.

Facing the nuclear project, she is waging a long campaign to thwart and expose him.

The concept of the battle between the wars (MBM), formulated in the IDF, expresses an understanding that the Iranian war against Israel is not declared, is largely conducted by foreign emissaries and the lands of others.

In a "classical" war, armies, logistics lines, commanders and military infrastructure are legitimate targets, which the laws of war allow to be harmed, provided a proper military benefit, a distinction between military and civilian objectives, and proportionate casualty damage.

Iran's art of war is based on a deliberate blurring between the military and civilians, both on the attacking side, sheltered among the population and under civilian cover, and on the casualty side, where civilians and population centers are a primary target.

When calculated risk becomes a risky gamble

The Iranian campaign is in fact a war in slow motion and over a small fire, and many in the world find it difficult to identify as such or avoid it.

When Iran plotted its path of deceptive war against Israel and others in the region, it received a response of its kind.

When it violates the sovereignty of other countries, is attacked as a host, arm its envoys in the region with weapons from its military industry and strives for nuclear weapons - its territory, its industries and its nuclear projects become a legitimate military target.

Fahrizadeh was not a civilian killed for political reasons, but a soldier and general killed in the service of a strategic military enterprise.

On the value level, at least, the attack on it can be seen as a legitimate, distinct and proportionate counter-action within the framework of the campaign, which opened its country to regional hegemony, nuclear weapons and the erasure of Israel from the map.

The discussion rooms must have dealt with Iran's possible response to the incident: how, when and where, in response to it and in ways to manage the escalation.

Although Iran fears a US attack in the late Trump era, and looks forward to the Biden era, it has urged a decisive and immediate response to exact a price from the aggressor, deter it from further assassinations, and meet public expectations.

It is very likely that Israel will be the target of the response.

The options for action are varied but not necessarily available and appropriate.

An attack on Iranian territory is dangerous and goes against its preference to keep fighting beyond its borders.

In Syria, Iraq and Yemen, the emissaries' capabilities to harm Israel are limited.

Lebanon has many capabilities, but so does the risk of a widespread escalation, which Hezbollah seeks to avoid.

And there are terrorist attacks abroad, but these are perceived worldwide as acts of terrorism on the territory of sovereign states, and may not constitute an appropriate retaliation.

Fighting against Israel in the gray space.

Revolutionary Guards march in Tehran, 2011 (Photo: Reuters)

Decisions in war are the product of total pressure, Churchill wrote, and in Iran, too, a decision will be made in the space between "strong enough" and "not too strong." The architects of the Iranian campaign are devoutly careful to go to the threshold, not to go to war, as they firmly demonstrated in the Gulf last year and after the assassination of Suleimani. As they have proven in the past, the speed of response is less important to them than its quality and accuracy.

The Hezbollah leader probably remembers his main lesson from the 2006 war: walking on the brink assumes an expected enemy. When the enemy exceeds expectations, a calculated risk becomes a risky gamble, and a planned operation rolls into an uncontrollable disaster. The Israeli government also approved an operation at the time and found itself at war. It's twilight: with Trump facing the door, and Israel and Iran in unprecedented circumstances, caution is the order of the day.

• Share on Facebook

• Share on WhatsApp

• Share on general

• Share on general

• Share on Twitter

• Share on Email

0 comments